1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
NOTICE OF REBUTTAL, BY AFFIDAVIT
TO:
Robert R. Di Trolio
dba “Clerk of Court”
United States Tax Court
400 Second Street, N.W.
Washington 20217
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
FROM:
Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Federal Witness
and Criminal Investigator
DATE:
August 30, 2007 A.D.
SUBJECT:
numerous errors in your correspondence of August 24, 2007
Greetings Mr. Di Trolio:
My office has been retained to conduct a professional review, and to
serve you with this verified rebuttal, of your written correspondence
to Mr. Chester E. Davis, dated August 24, 2007 (copies attached).
In the second paragraph, you refer to “the oaths of my duties” [sic].
It is evident from the context that this phrase instead should read
“the oaths of my deputies”.
Please correct me immediately if I am
wrong about your text.
The term “duties” also appears to be more than a mere typographical
error.
You will please note that the text of each separate oath
required by the federal statutes at 5 U.S.C. 3331 and 28 U.S.C. 951
contains entirely different language.
The latter statute is
particularly relevant because it makes reference to the “duties” of
court clerks in two (2) different places. Were “duties” on your mind?
The OPM Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS are subject to public scrutiny,
chiefly because they are required by Article VI, Clause 3 in the U.S.
Constitution and by the federal statute at 5 U.S.C. 3331. The Clerk
of Court is the designated legal custodian of that credential, even
his own, pursuant to the federal statute at 5 U.S.C. 2906.
There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial
records. See Valley Broadcasting Company v. USDC, 798 F.2d 1289, hn. 4
(9th Cir. 1986).
Of even greater significance here are the timeless
words of the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona: “Where rights
secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making
or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Thus, your attempt to
invoke unspecified “United States government personnel regulations”
holds no water, because “regulations” cannot abrogate the U.S.
Constitution.
Clearly, the Oath of Office Clause secures to all
Americans the fundamental Right to enjoy unrestricted access to the
two (2) separate Oaths that are required by the federal statutes at 5
U.S.C. 3331 and 28 U.S.C. 951. Cf. Supremacy Clause here.
Notice of Rebuttal, by AFFIDAVIT:
Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
You, on the other hand, have cited no authority for your claim that
the latter credentials “are not subject to public scrutiny.”
Thus,
you appear to have fabricated that claim out of thin air, and you also
appear to be protecting all deputies who presently lack either an
APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVIT and/or an OATH OF OFFICE.
Impersonating an officer of the United States (federal government) is
a federal felony violation of 18 U.S.C. 912. Aiding and abetting such
impersonation is a felony violation of 18 U.S.C. 2.
Falsifying or
concealing a material fact that is within the jurisdiction of any
branch of the federal government is another felony violation of 18
U.S.C. 1001. Transmitting false and/or fraudulent court “process” via
U.S. Mail is mail fraud, another felony violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341.
Moreover, mail fraud is also one of the RICO “predicate acts” itemized
at 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq. See also 28 U.S.C. 1691 in this context.
Your third paragraph also makes a number of serious legal errors. You
wrote that “all of these are courts established pursuant to Article
III of the United States Constitution.”
Do you even bother to read
the statutes in question, before drafting such erroneous claims?
Yes, it is correct that the Supreme Court was originally established
by Article III.
As such, it is the only federal court that was
actually created by the U.S. Constitution.
Consequently all other
federal courts must be created by one or more Acts of Congress.
The federal statutes which established the Courts of Appeal do not
identify their constitutional origins.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 41-49.
So,
we must confer with standing Supreme Court decisions to supply the
missing information. In Old Colony Trust Co. v. C.I.R., 279 U.S. 716,
722 (1929), the high Court held that all Circuit Courts are
constitutional courts i.e. created under Article III.
Similarly, the federal statute which established the United States
District Courts (“USDC”) inside the 50 States of the Union does not
identify their constitutional origins either.
See 28 U.S.C. 132.
Again, we must confer with standing Supreme Court decisions to supply
the missing information. In Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312
(1922), the Supreme Court held that the USDC originate in the
Territory Clause at Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2.
Bankruptcy courts are expressly established as “units” of the USDC.
See 28 U.S.C. 151. As such, their constitutional origin must also be
the Territory Clause, likewise pursuant to Balzac supra and similar
standing decisions of the Supreme Court, of which there are several.
The federal statute establishing the Court of Federal Claims states
expressly that its constitutional origin is Article I not Article III.
See 28 U.S.C. 171: “The court is declared to be a court established
under article I of the Constitution of the United States.”
You are partially correct to argue that the Tax Court is established
under Article I, because the federal statute which created it
expressly identifies Article I as its present constitutional origin.
Notice of Rebuttal, by AFFIDAVIT:
Page 2 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
See IRC 7441:
“There is hereby established, under article I of the
Constitution of the United States, a court of record to be known as
the United States Tax Court.”
Your citation to “26 U.S.C. 7441” is
not legally enforceable as such, however, because Title 26 of the U.S.
Code has never been enacted into positive law by any Act of Congress.
See 1 U.S.C. 101 in this context (defines “Act of Congress”).
You then try to draw more erroneous conclusions from your pivotal
errors above when you claim that “neither I nor my deputy clerks are
required to execute the Oath of Office mandated by 28 U.S.C. 951.” In
clear contradiction to your erroneous conclusions, that federal
statute makes no exceptions for the United States Tax Court, because
it refers expressly to “each clerk of court and his deputies”. Your
letterhead reads “Clerk of Court” and the title you are claiming -“Clerk of Court” -- is exhibited immediately below your signature.
You also err again when you claim an exemption under the section
552(f) of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).
5 U.S.C. 552(f)
does not tell the whole story when defining an “agency” because that
subsection refers to another federal statute at 5 U.S.C. 551(1). The
latter statute expressly excludes “the courts of the United States” at
5 U.S.C. 551(1)(B).
If you are claiming exemption from the FOIA
because of that specific exemption, then the U.S. Tax Court must be a
“court of the United States” whose clerks are required by 28 U.S.C.
951 to execute a separate OATH OF OFFICE, in addition to the
APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVIT required by 5 U.S.C. 3331.
You can’t have it
both ways: is it a “court” when you want it to be, and “not a court”
when you don’t want it to be? We don’t think so!
You also state that you “will certify that a proper oath of office was
executed by each of my deputies.” When “will” you do that? However,
because your letter contains no CERTIFICATION or VERIFICATION
paragraph that conforms to 28 U.S.C. 1746(2), it does not “certify”
anything, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
And,
you cannot “certify” that claim in good faith now, because you have
already argued -- incorrectly -- that your deputies are not required
to comply with the separate OATH OF OFFICE mandated by 28 U.S.C. 951.
We now take that to mean they don’t have any such OATHS OF OFFICE.
Particularly relevant are the Historical and Statutory Notes under 28
USCA 951, which are identical to those Notes as published on the
Internet at Cornell’s electronic version of the U.S. Code:
“This
section is applicable to the Supreme Court and to all courts
established by Act of Congress” [emphasis added]. Since the Tax Court
was established by Act of Congress at IRC 7441, 28 U.S.C. 951 is
applicable to all clerks and deputy clerks who are now, or were,
employed by the Tax Court. See Acts at 68A Stat. 879 (Aug. 16, 1954)
and 83 Stat. 730 (Dec. 30, 1969).
Similarly, at 28 USCA 951 under “Research References” we find a
citation to 15A Am.Jur.2d (2000): Clerks of Court, Section 3:
Eligibility and Qualifications, to wit: “The form of oath to be taken
by clerks of federal courts is prescribed by statute.”
Then, that
Section 3 of Am.Jur.2d directly cites 28 USCA 951!
Notice of Rebuttal, by AFFIDAVIT:
Page 3 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
For your information, we also investigated The Constitution Annotated
as published by the Government Printing Office.
Under the Oath of
Office Clause we found citations to McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S.
316, 416 (1819); Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333, 337 (1866); and Bond
v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116 (1966). As you should know, these are binding
Supreme Court decisions i.e. binding on you!
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty of
perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the
“United States” (federal government), that the above statement of
facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My
current information, knowledge, and belief, so help me God, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
See Supremacy Clause (Constitution, Laws and
Treaties of the United States are all the supreme Law of the Land).
The alleged OPM Standard Form 61 that you attached to your letter to
Mr. Davis also exhibits serious problems.
First of all, there is
evidently no OMB control number or expiration date on the Form 61 that
you signed. Pursuant to the clear legislative intent of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, this missing OMB control number automatically renders
that form a “bootleg request”. In other words, it’s a counterfeit.
Moreover, a valid APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVIT must be administered by a
person specified at 5 U.S.C. 2903.
Your “Form 61” has completely
removed that requirement, when it is clearly stated on all APPOINTMENT
AFFIDAVITS that we have received to date from DOJ, in reply to our
numerous FOIA Requests for the credentials of federal court officers.
Therefore, it does not appear that one “Donna Lewis” dba “Human
Resources Specialist” is qualified to witness your “Form 61” because
she is not a person specified at 5 U.S.C. 2903. It’s a counterfeit!
For all of the reasons stated above, your erroneous letter dated
August 24, 2007 and counterfeit “Form 61”, as transmitted via U.S.
Mail to Mr. Chester E. Davis, are hereby formally refused.
Please take note that the following is a legally proper and sufficient
VERIFICATION paragraph, based on our many YEARS of litigation
experience as a Private Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. 1964(a):
VERIFICATION
Dated:
August 30, 2007 A.D.
45
46
47
48
49
50
Signed:
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
__________________________________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Private Attorney General
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Rebuttal, by AFFIDAVIT:
Page 4 of 5
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Sui Juris, hereby certify, under
3
penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America,
4
without the “United States” (federal government), that I am at least
5
18 years of age, a Citizen of ONE OF the United States of America, and
6
that I personally served the following document(s):
7
8
9
NOTICE OF REBUTTAL, BY AFFIDAVIT
by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first
10
class United States Mail, with postage prepaid and properly addressed
11
to the following:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Robert R. Di Trolio
dba “Clerk of Court”
United States Tax Court
400 Second Street, N.W.
Washington 20217
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
Office of Chief Judge
United States Tax Court
400 Second Street, N.W.
Washington 20217
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
Mr. Chester E. Davis
c/o P.O. Box 2110
Clackamas 97015
OREGON, USA
U.S. Postal Inspection Service
Attention: Postmaster General
c/o U.S. Post Office
Washington 20217
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Judiciary Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington 20515
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
Judiciary Committee
U.S. Senate
Washington 20510
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA
[See USPS Publication #221 for addressing instructions.]
Dated:
August 30, 2007 A.D.
36
37
38
39
40
Signed:
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
__________________________________________________________
Printed: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Private Attorney General
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Notice of Rebuttal, by AFFIDAVIT:
Page 5 of 5